I will refrain from accusing anyone of holding ill will towards homosexuals, unless you flat out lie (like saying gay people are pedophiles).
What I am looking for is your best argument (s) against gay marriage, in favor of traditional marriage, in order to foster understanding. Use whatever source you want: The Bible, science, anything you find to be compelling. (Notice I am using gay-marriage instead of marriage equality to try and remain as neutral as possible).
The arguments in favor of traditional marriage also don't have to necessarily endorse a government ban on gay marriage. You could see it as a private matter, like being personally against alcohol, but in favor of the ability to buy it. However, if your argument supports a ban on gay marriage, bring that to bear also.
There are several.
Right now I'll give you the most basic one.
A man cannot be a wife nor a mother, and a woman cannot be a husband nor a father.
How simple that is.
I bet you know the other arguments too.
And actually the burden of proof should be upon the liberals who are yelling for gay marriage, not upon conservatives. Try as they might, there's no good argument, no good reason, for them trying to invade the institution of marriage and change it into something it isn't.
News Flash: Dead bodies can't be fathers or mothers. Does that mean single parents should be dragged out into the street and murdered, too?
So? What does being a wife or mother have to do with it?
There are many good reasons for either making marriage equal, or removing government from the decision process. Equality and freedom are at the top of that list.
When it comes to deciding if citizens should be able to do something or not, the onus is on the one arguing on LIMITING freedom, not vice versa.
I will support gay marriage when there is proof that gay marriage is good for all, partners, children and that it won't get out of control. Everything gets kind of confusing when transsexual and bisexual is part of the whole thing.
Yesterday I heard a news item about a couple who wanted to get divorced in Arizona. Tom who was born a woman, originally her name was Tracy. She,Tracy, had a double mastectomy and testosterone treatments and became Tom. He married Nancy in another state. When Nancy couldn't have children, Tom, who professed to be a man, but still had female organs ,using donated sperm had three children. Whoa that is confusing.
How about supporting it when convinced that there is little to no harm going to come of it instead of requiring that it actually be positive for everyone involved?
Not necessarily a positive, just not a negative? Isn't that what much of other's rights are about - what they want and not particularly what you or I decide is best for them?
God forbid something confusing happen, we obviously can't have that
As for it working several countries have had it for significant time with no negative consequences.
I've read every single reply so far. The divorce rate in America for opposite sex marriages is about 50%. I don't know what the statistics are for those who took religious vows, but I'll bet it was pretty high. Who is to say whether opposite sex marriages are better than same sex marriages? Here is the link to the divorce rates: http://www.divorcerate.org/.
What the supreme court is deliberating now is whether same sex couples will be given the same legal rights as opposite sex couples. It has nothing to do with the morality or sanctity of marriage or the bible. As far as I know there is nothing in the constitution that says in order to get married you need the blessing a church! The bible is for the church and the constitution is for our laws. Here is a link to a website that summarizes 1,138 laws that benefit heterosexual marriages but not same sex marriages. http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-o … ed-couples
I saw this someplace and seemed to make sense for me. You don't get a wedding license. You get a marriage license. Weddings are a ceremony. A marriage license makes it legal. That's what is being deliberated in the Supreme Court. The legality of same sex marriage.
There is nothing wrong with individuals wanting to show commitment to each other by marriage (even if they are the same sex) but there is everything wrong with trying to force religious institutions to carry out those marriages.
Best option would be for same sex partner marriages to be recognised in law and give religious organisations an opertunity to opt out of performing ceremonies for the said same sex marriages. ( I think that's what will be happening here int he UK)
The argument should centre around the purpose of marriage.
Is marriage about equality? No.
Is it about rights? No.
Is it about religion? No.
Is it about telling the world that you love someone? No.
Marriage is designed for just a few specific purposes:
1. As a necessary contract for the protection of offspring.
2. For insurance against future generations inbreeding (ie; knowing who belongs to whom in law).
3. For the assurance that men will take responsibility for their children and the mothers of those children.
4. For the protection of mothers when they are most vulnerable (ie; pregnant or with small children).
For these reasons, the purpose of marriage is for the protection of society against unnecessary unrest. Marriage is often a romantic thing, but romance is not its purpose. You can only justify gay marriage therefore, by changing the meaning and purpose of marriage.
The purpose of marriage is stability (financial and otherwise) It is a social contract that will insure just that. In many cases, it has nothing to do with children (many couples do not have or want offspring). Both parties are equally responsible for the successes of the social contract
Good luck. You can get arguments based on the Bible, or arguments based on personal morals, but you won't get any arguments that work with the Constitution and role of government.
Most anti-homosexual arguments usually amount to "THE BIBLE!!" or "Eugghh" when you get right down to it.
ha ha...always love these versus...we like to be disobedient in them, but not okay for others when they hit the bone where you don't agree.
ha ha...always love these versus...we like to be disobedient in them, but not okay for others when they hit the bone where you don't agree.
Marriage is the best way to commit oneself to love in a relationship. A family needs the commitment of the adults/parents to each other to have a solid and lasting foundation. The children take a long time to mature/grow and need the security of a wholesome, happy and lasting environment and marriage insures this. I do not think that individuals of the same gender have to marry unless they want a family and children will be involved.
Furthermore, I do not think two individuals of the same gender should be allowed to adopt children unless they ARE married.
Of my 4 married nieces/nephews, only 2 have children. The other 2 couples don't want them and will probably never have them.
I presume they didn't "have" to get married? That there was no reason to?
I am talking about people of the same gender. If they really want to, that is entirely up to them, of course. (I wonder how many REALLY want to "tie the knot." How many have? all of them??? No. Why not? Friends, family,
minister = wedding. Nothing stopping them at all. Instead, how many are enjoying a childless, free lifestyle of dating or living with someone for as long as it works out and then moving on to the next relationship?
So, people of the same gender shouldn't get married because they can't procreate and have children,
if people of the same gender want to get married, then they should, if they really want to, of course, (which is the problem, they can't)
people of the same gender should not be allowed to adopt children UNLESS they are married...
did I get that right?
"Friends, family, minister = wedding"
isn't completely true.
Here's an article about a same sex married couple who do not have the same rights as a traditional married couple:
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/175295410 … f-marriage
Here's an excerpt of what I mean:
"The test case involves a couple from New York, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who had been together for 42 years prior to their marriage in 2007. When Spyer died, however, the federal government, acting under DOMA, required Windsor to pay $363,000 in estate taxes that she would not have owed if her spouse had been of the opposite sex.
"If Thea had been Theo, I would not have had to pay those taxes," says Windsor. "It's just a terrible injustice and I don't expect that from my country. I think it's a mistake that has to get corrected." At the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Windsor's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, will tell the justices that the federal government, throughout the nation's history, has always deferred to state definitions of marriage, because regulating marriage is a state function. But because of DOMA, that traditional deference to the states doesn't exist for same-sex couples. Edie Windsor's marriage, recognized as legally valid by the state of New York, is not recognized by the federal government."
I don't think men should be allowed to adopt or foster children,unless relatives,no matter what their sexual activities are. Women have kids and that is it... Otherwise who is bothered who lives,legal or otherwise ,with who ?
Wow, I don't think I've ever heard that before...
You don't think a child can be as well off with just a father as it can with just a mother?
Well there are many mothers out there that are not good mothers just because they gave birth. Lots of mothers that make bad choices all the way around, or leave their children just as well as men do. So of course the courts put the child where it is appropriate, as what is best for the child. So I don't think the last few decades could be dismissed when plenty of fathers have stepped up to the plate.
I have to say that was the least thought out answer in this entire forum thread. Last year approximately 17,000 children were adopted by male same sex couples. Do you have an alternative for those children? Would you rather they stay in the foster care system? Bounce from home to home?
Well then ! Maybe you should start thinking..
My point exactly, couldn't even answer the question.
When men can have children----well then ! Can easily answer any question but how can you learn if others do the work for you ??
Learn what exactly? That you would rather 17,000 children be homeless than have two dads? A man is just as capable of parenting as a woman. Who spits a child out their crotch is irrelevant. Plenty of women have shown they aren't capable of raising a child.
sexual gender doesn't qualify you as a good or bad parent. Perhaps it's the sexual example you're aiming at here.
Wilderness beat me to it!
Is baby-making the only reason people "have to" get married? I can't have kids, so I guess my husband and I had no reason to get married.
Some individuals of the same gender may not want to marry. I am considering these people. If they do not want to have children they do not have to get married. Why would they want to? Marriage is suddenly something SO WONDERFUL?
Welcome all frying pans, financial woes, divorce details and misery... LOL
(Staying single might actually be one of the advantages of having same gender orientation. )
No, they don't "have to" marry (nobody has to), but why stop them if they DO want to? My husband and I wanted to get married, even though we can't have kids. How is that different?
(In '09 I was the dog sitter for a well to do producer who enjoyed the companionship of the same sex. He had a beautiful home and beautiful yard for his three black standard poodles. They were always waiting for me, beautifully groomed, with colorful handkerchief scarves around their necks. One was a puppy and needed a person to look after him.
Anyway, there was one bedroom in his house which he obviously used for bed romping with whomever he wished. I am quite sure he had no plans to marry. Ever.)
That's him. That's not every gay person in the world.
You have me confused (not that confusing me is hard to do right now, as I've been sick and "out of it" for the past several days).. In one post you said:
"I do not think that individuals of the same gender have to marry unless they want a family and children will be involved."
In another, you said:
"If they really want to [get married], that is entirely up to them, of course."
I agree, but it seems to conflict what you were saying above.
Then, you say:
"Some individuals of the same gender may not want to marry. I am considering these people. If they do not want to have children they do not have to get married. Why would they want to?"
You say that as if anybody who doesn't have or want kids SHOULDN'T want to get married! There are plenty of gay (and straight) people who don't want to or can't have kids who would still like to have that commitment to each other and the legal benefits that come with it.
I have no idea what you mean by this:
"Are they not married Y E T ?"
Sure, some gay couples are married, if they are lucky enough to live in an area that allows same sex marriage. There are still PLENTY of places that don't allow it. So, no, not all gay couples who want to get married are married.
The government should allow legal *Same-Gender Partnerships* and give them benefits based on their same gender relationship status. Institute a bonding institution: Call it "LGBT Partnership" for people who are oriented toward the same gender, but don't call it "marriage." After all, according to the dictionary, marriage is based on* matrimony.* see below)
And yes, they can have a religious wedding ceremony if they so choose for the sake of their own lives.
Do not issue a Marriage Certificate to same gender couples but, rather, a Legal Union Certificate.
This should help clarify everything.
What is it with the religious angle? People have been getting married for a long, long time without a priest in attendance - ships captains can marry, Las Vegas has hundreds of locations without ministers, and any Justice of the Peace can marry someone. I've been married (married, mind you, not some declared "partnership") for 37 years now with nothing but the approval of a JP. I neither know nor care whether God chooses to recognize my marriage - I am more married than the vast majority of couples using religion to make their promises.
While religion may like to claim sole responsibility and authority for marriage, it isn't so and hasn't been in the past.
Marriage was originally for the purpose of uniting two people together who wanted to commit themselves to one another under mutual Love. Traditionally, marriage ceremonies were conducted
in the presence of the Lord
'til death do us part.
- without God, what keeps them together, I wonder?
Can you give dates, location and culture for that original purpose?
Most certain it is that love is NOT under the jurisdiction of a god that promotes slavery, genocide, child abuse and rape. Love falls under the guidance of eros and aphrodite, not the Christian myth.
God is the force of morals in our lives: Boundaries for our own good. See Jesus. However, even He knew that marriage was not easy and actually said it would be better for people not to get married and devote themselves to God...but, acknowledged that it was also hard to live without it: (love and sex.)
In other words, Legal Marriage makes love and sex legitimate for heterosexual couples and Legal Union will make it legitimate for LGBT couples. I think this is a great idea, if I don't say so myself!
No, God is the force of morals in your life, with boundaries set for the good of the church. Other people have other gods, or even just their own mind to form their morals with.
No, both love AND sex are legitimate for both hetero and gay couples. Hard to believe that you think the govt. has to say it's OK before one person can love another - even provide a license for it!
I think it is an extremely poor idea to require one segment of the population to have a different word for the same thing. If the religious folk, being legitimized by their specific god, wants a different word, let them make up and choose one for their relationship. "Born again", maybe, as a couple instead of individuals.
(I didn't see any history of marriage, showing the origin of marriage with that "original purpose" you claimed)
@ wilderness: Lord Hardwicke's Act of 1753 in England and Wales instituted performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses. (In general, marriage also proves legitimacy of offspring.)
Marriage was instituted so that women could be seen as possessions.
Marriage was a transferal of ownership from the father who owns his daughter to her husband that will now own her, (hence her father giving her away in modern marriages), married women were considered chattel of their husbands in most first world countries until around 80 years ago.
Usually the trade involved a material trade of possessions too such as a dowry.
Good thing that is no longer the case. Now for my next question how do we feel about a man or woman marrying their horse or other animal? Will we in 10 years see people feeling discriminated against because they can't marry their sister? Where will it end?
Are animals consenting adults?
That is always such a ridiculous argument.
Incest is illegal... being gay is not.
Slippery slope, eh?
No but a brother and sister are, and what difference does it make, the animal lover feels discriminated against. What say you?
Edit. it wasn't an argument it was a question.
As I edited my reply, incest is illegal, being gay is not.
Consent is obviously tantamount, otherwise it's an act forced on someone or something, an animal cannot rationally consent, as for brother and sister there are serious potential consequences for the children of the couple but if either agreed to be sterilized (vasectomy for example) then I would be fine with them marrying, it's none of my business or our business what people want to do as long as it harms no one else.
You don't think two men having sex can result in serious potential consequences?
So you would force sterilization on another human?
I guess it depends on how energetic they are about it.
No same sex intercourse has no dangerous consequences for others, intercourse between men causes slightly more exchange of STDs than heterosexual intercourse, intercourse between women causes significantly less exchange of STDs than heterosexual intercourse all of which can be effectively neutralized by safe sex practices. So no there is no issue there.
As for sterilization no obviously it would not be forced it would a be a condition of marriage to prevent harm to the potential child.
Incest isn't illegal, but it's usually seen as being really frickin' weird. If you're into that kind of thing, go for it...?
Well, I suppose it end-for you-with deciding who you want to marry.
Why on earth would you care who anyone else decides to marry?
Or do we all get a vote on that too? Because, OK that's fair. You get to decide who I marry so I get to decide for you too.
We can all be equally miserable then. Cool!
BTW... if you really want to marry your sister and/or your horse... and if she/he/it can communicate rationally that he/she/it doesn't mind then I have no problem with it.
BECAUSE IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS.
I see that some of you are not in control of your emotions, I am simply asking questions.
When you equate people loving someone they love with marrying an animal you should not be surprised if people respond with a little emotion, frankly I am surprised it's not much more, it's monumentally insulting.
Maybe someone loves their horse, why is that insulting?
People have actually married animals, inanimate objects... and no one has complained that it is destroying marriage. People arrange marriages between animals and no one complains that it is destroying marriage.
I don't see anything wrong with two consenting adults who wish to marry so that when one of them becomes terminally ill they might actually get to visit them in the hospital while they are on their deathbed. So that, like straight marriages, the partner can be taken care of when one dies. So they get the same tax breaks... and burdens... of straight married people.
Have people married their animals in the United States? I haven't heard of that but who knows. I am not arguing that homosexual couples marrying will destroy the tradition of marriage however two men marrying will almost certainly not be traditional. Why not lobby for a vote nationwide instead of having a court decide?
Why should you get a vote on whether someone else should marry?
Because currently in most states it is illegal for a man or woman to marry the same sex. Why should a few decide for an entire nation?
Voters never get to decide on the constitutionality of a law... why make an exception with this?
The majority do not get to pass laws that are against the constitution, no matter how much they want to.
The argument should have never been a voting measure. It should have gone through the courts to establish constitutionality... just as it's doing now.
Just as an asides, you do realize that a MAJORITY of the population now favors gay marriage... right?
That's true, so why was it ever put up to a vote to begin with, to get to this point?
"Just as an asides, you do realize that a MAJORITY of the population now favors gay marriage... right?"
I know that is what some of you keep saying but I haven't concerned myself to check if that is true. If that is the case why did a state like California vote against legalizing it?
I have no bloody clue. Politics I suppose.
Not allowing it is unconstitutional... so I have no idea why it wasn't challenged through the courts and won that way...
It was the obviously unconstitutional DOMA act that really forced votes to form new laws on a state level to work around it. So in effect, you all did this to yourself.
You all got what you wanted with DOMA and now it is blowing up in your faces. You turned it from decades of future struggles and legal maneuverings to maybe another 10 years before it is pretty much universal.
It's like the anti-drug laws that the states are now taking to votes to work around federal laws.
You make a lot of assumptions, I never said I was against gay marriage I was just asking questions. My opinion on what marriage is or isn't is not within your realm of knowledge. But given your predisposition to assumptions I'm betting you will disagree.
Dude, you compared being gay to marrying your horse.
That's all I need to make an assumption. I may be wrong, but it's pretty damn unlikely.
If you are saying you fully support gay marriage, just say the words and I will most certainly apologize.
I did no such thing, I asked if someone wanted to marry their horse how would you and everyone else feel about it.
So you were arguing bestiality rights as a totally unrelated matter?
If the issue is so dear to you, I will help you find some organizations to help you and your proclivities in your struggle for equal recognition under the law.
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be any help at all. I was asking where would things end, do you think animal owners don't have rights?
Oh, did we switch to a PETA thread when I wasn't looking?
Otherwise, the only reason I can see to bring bestiality into a gay thread would be as a comparison.
And incest too btw.
I'm just curious why you didn't bring up pedophilia so you could go for the predictability triple crown?
I'm also curious, personally, why I'm feeding a sock puppet. It must be a bad day for me.
I guess I'm not following you, I am asking questions that I would expect a reasonable person to answer reasonably. If you can't simply ignore and I will wait for a reasonable person.
Actually, you aren't asking reasonable questions. You are asking questions that are completely unrelated to the discussion. Start an incest thread or a horse bestiality thread. They have nothing to do with gay rights.
But they do have to do with rights, which is what this is all about.
No, they don't.
Beastiality is a crime against an animal that is unable to consent to a sexual act with a human.
Incest is a deviant sexual behavior that is generally perpetrated by those in a position of power upon those who are also not capable of giving consent. It also poses a health risk to offspring, which is a problem that gays- as everyone is so excited to point out- do not have to face.
I have no clue why I am responding, incest is not always a case of power over another individual, it can also be between two consenting people, do you refute that? If you do I will gladly provide you with cases. What does the horses consent matter, did the horse give its consent to be ridden? No it did not, men decided that a human can't have sex with an animal thereby denying that persons right. It may have to go to the Supreme Court.
Because sex without consent is rape.
Two consenting adults have sex it is sex. You have sex with your horse, it is rape.
Which is why you can't compare.
Incest is MOST OF THE TIME a case of power dynamics.
What you are attempting to do is compare homosexuality to deviant sexual behavior. It is not.
You can try to dress it up anyway you like to but that's what you are doing...
You are also trolling, as our most famous sock puppet does, and I also am not sure why I am responding except a desire to avoid work.
I'm not trying to dress it up in any way, homosexual conduct in most states is deviant sexual behavior! I didn't make the law and that is why these laws are challenged. You don't seem to use logic but rather emotion in your arguments, you don't know the voters in California have twice voted down gay marriage and want to make it seem as if I am confused.
No homosexuality in most states ISN'T deviant behavior. In no state is it deviant behavior. It isn't illegal in any US state.
I didn't say homosexuality, I said homosexual conduct.
EDIT I was wrong it is illegal in most states. Sorry.
In no state is homosexual CONDUCT considered deviant behavior. It is legal in all 50 states.
Yep, a quick search and you are correct. I apologize I was unaware some of these states changed their laws.
They didn't. The only court that matters changed them.
I think that isn't the case, SCOTUS ruled but the states didn't comply. The Supreme Court cannot change a states law they can only deem it unconstitutional.
Which in essence would make enforcing that law illegal.
Anyway, I'm going to actually do some work now.
Good luck with the whole horse and sister situation. Let me know how it works out for you.
Didn't change the law did it, they stayed on the books for 8 years. But to get back to my questions, isn't the entire point of gay marriage to be equal to different sex marriage? How will we discriminate against those who take it further and still call ourselves just?
Wow, you really do need to do more research into the California gay marriage issue.
That's above my pay grade.
You have access to Google, enlighten yourself.
In other words you don't have a clue. well, I do.
Oh, so you've already been enlightened...
I'm curious why you were saying that Californians didn't pass prop 22 then... because they did. Or are you talking about prop 8?
You don't have a clue, of course prop 22 passed, and it restricted marriages to only those between opposite-sex couples.
Prop 8 did the exact same thing.
And did you happen to look at the margins on 8 and 22?
Or the constitutionality of either?
The Constitutionality has yet to be determined, or would you like a lesson in that also?
Actually the constitutionality of prop 22 was already determined.... which is why prop 8 was needed to amend the state constitution.
But sure, give me a lesson.
Deemed constitutional by who? Certainly not by the only court that matters!
Um... since it was CA judges that deemed it unconstitutional to the California State constitution, then I think it kind of does matter.
So a 52 percent vote (with several hundred thousand invalid ballots) voters tried to rewrite the constitution. Which is what is going to the SCOUS now.
In CA domestic partnerships get all those rights without the marriage tax penalty.
Right. Sex is a love potion, often times. I heard a guy on the radio declaring that he should be allowed to marry his dog because he loved her... and why would that be? (... he even confessed it.)
I could barely listen.
I am currently eating a bologna sandwich... I don't really think that qualifies as not being in control of my emotions.
I typed in all caps to make a point, not because I was emotional. Sorry, you ain't got the kind of pull needed to make me emotional...
But hey you want to answer the questions, Hoss?
What questions do you have? I think that none of you really has an answer to any of mine, lady hoss.
In response to your questions... that I saw...
If you want to marry your horse... I don't care. As long as your horse can consent.
If you want to marry your sister... I don't care. As long as your sister can consent.
No, gay men having sex causes no more serious potential problems than heterosexual sex.
I have no idea where forced sterilazation comes from, but no I'm not a big fan of it.
Did I miss any hoss?
You need to go further back than Latin or biblical times. Monogamy (the forerunner of marriage) is a behaviour that has been selected over many years through the process of natural selection. The long developmental period of human infants (compared to other mammals) meant there was a survival advantage in both parents sticking around to rear the child. Traditionally this would have been the female providing nourishment (through breast milk) for the child, the male providing nourishment for himself and the female, and both providing protection for the infant while the slow process of development took place.
As human beings became more complex and developed different layers of socialisation, certain evolved behaviours became codified as part of moral codes, customs, traditions, religious practices etc. So the behaviour we call monogamy, turned into the social/religious construct we call marriage.
The truth is that conditions which originally gave marriage/monogamy a survival value do not exist to the same way they did. A male is no longer needed to provide food and protection to a mother and infant. Two females can adequately provide both those things. Likewise two males (who obviously have no breast milk) can successfully rear an infant from birth. This is because we have developed to a point where we have overcome some of the constraints of our biology and our physical environment. So marriage/monogamy in the 21st century is more a matter of choice than of survival.
The problem is that we seem less able to overcome the traditions, customs and practices which stem from those adapted behaviours. Probably because these things have become aspects of people's identity. Someone saying they are a Christian is not only a statement of fact, but also a statement of identity. For those people, it is not just about changing a tradition. I think it is about giving up something which is deeply ingrained in someone's identity. But there is precedent for doing so.
Segregation in the South was ingrained as part of some people's identity, but (thankfully) society changed. There are still pockets of people who would like a return to those times, but generally society has moved on. I think the same will happen with this issue. It will take time and it will mean some people (perhaps not unlike yourself) will feel their identity, their way of life, even the fabric of society, is under attack. But just as it did when slavery was abolished, just as it did when women got the vote, just as it did when desegregation happened, I think the time will pass and attitudes will slowly adapt. Such is the progress of human beings.
The conservatives who have finally given in on this topic have done so because tthese are moslty issues of people wanting to benefit from financial rights that traditional couples have. There simply is one form of marrige that government has any business bothering about it is civil . The paranoid right needs to understand that even their radical rabid Catholic friends do not see their marriages as legitimate. This is a civil and not theological matter. As far as the slippery slope issue. The governent has no need to legitimate poly amory on the basis that it is far too much trouble to even think about dealing with people who want to claim they have more than one spouse. There is no moral judgement needed here because as long as the rights of support are given to children of any biological union , society can not be asked to mess with the complications polygamist cause by their lifestyle. The other stuff about marrying goats and things. Well the government is not in the business of controling fetish lifestyles so it is just a stupid issue to bring up. No one is going to decide what a particular flavor of Christianity can deem the sacrament of marriage as. Many radical protestants don't view it as a sacrement anyway. If we wanted to promote the cause of traditional marriage we would do it by making divorce complicated enough to discourage people getting married on a whim less likely to happen.
Question, Kathryn L Hill.
If you were the dog sitter, what were you doing looking in the bedrooms? Surely that door would have been kept closed, no?
No, actually. I would often rest with the dogs all around me on the bed. ( I worked at a camp for special needs children and would arrive at his house in the afternoon, exhausted. (His house was so beautiful, neat and clean with nothing out of place. I felt so relaxed there compared to how I felt in the disarray of my own house.) So, while resting there I eventually noticed certain items in this room. At first, I thought it was just an extra bedroom... but there in the closet was a mirror set up, just so... and there in the drawer were condoms, and there under the bed was a box... just kidding about the box.... I did not dare look under the bed!
I don't look in the closet or the drawer in anyone's house when I'm trusted to stay there alone - even in my adult children's homes. I think it is a betrayal of trust.
I find it interesting to compare this kind of behaviour with the words you speak. You know what they say about actions speaking louder ... ?
You could say that about a lot of these responses.
You are so nosey ! You remind me of my Boxer Dog. I think i like you....
In my defense, I had to find out if it was a spare bedroom or not! After I found out it was for bed romping, I never went in there again. No, I would sit on the couch watching his Home and Garden shows along with the dogs who loved hanging out with me. I was a very good dog/puppy sitter. I would recommend this job to to anyone!
I can only give the most ridiculous argument thus far (as I personally support "gay marriage.")
http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/jeremy-irons … 53998.html
Matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, (mater.) The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her." Wikipedia
I'm wondering why you are asking for "best arguments against gay marriage", Sooner28.
Please tell us, what inspired this thought? Are you researching a future hub, preparing yourself for a conversation with a gay friend or relative, or what?
I'm only asking because I'm scratching my head, wondering "Why??"
I explained it in the beginning: fostering understanding. I haven't attacked anyone. I'm simply reading responses.
I've written a hub about gay marriage, so this isn't for that.
Thanks for your response, Sooner28. Let's look at what you wrote ...
"What I am looking for is your best argument (s) against gay marriage, in favor of traditional marriage, in order to foster understanding. Use whatever source you want: The Bible, science, anything you find to be compelling. (Notice I am using gay-marriage instead of marriage equality to try and remain as neutral as possible).
"The arguments in favor of traditional marriage also don't have to necessarily endorse a government ban on gay marriage. You could see it as a private matter, like being personally against alcohol, but in favor of the ability to buy it. However, if your argument supports a ban on gay marriage, bring that to bear also."
If you were trying to foster understanding, why didn't you actively invite pro-gay marriage opinions as well?
Instantly gays are put in defensive mode. Either that or they stay away because they don't feel their opinion is 'welcome'.
Without any pro-gay marriage input you'd be left with a page that provided no understanding of the issue as a whole. So what would you be seeking us to understand? Just one side of the issue?
I believe because Sooner as a staunch supporter of same sex marriage rights is very familiar with the pro argument and is attempting to gain more understanding of the opposition to it.
Because I am pro-gay marriage to begin with. Reading any of my hubs, or even just browsing the titles, will make it unnecessarily obvious. I have a gay brother, and I am usually very direct about disagreeing with people who are against gay marriage. You could also check out the forums I have created. With this one, I was/am simply trying to more fully understand the opposition so I can stop thinking so low of them.
The purpose of the forum is for people who are against gay marriage to fully articulate their claims without fear of the creator of the forum disagreeing. I was aiming for a very open atmosphere.
I've created other forums that favor gay marriage, and responded to many people who disagree with it. I think you are just misunderstanding my purpose here.
How about bisexuals will they be able to marry a man and a woman? Will we be discriminating against polygamist's too? Will we just stop at two people getting married or can it be a group of people? We all have rights....right?
Why would bi-sexuals want to marry a man and a woman?
That question makes no sense.
As well as polygamy, it the bible says it's fine, that's good enough for me.
(I don't care about polygamy either, I honestly think it should be legalized as well... as long as all parties are of age and consenting)
Look, I'm done with you, you can ignore me and I will do the same.
I believe the legal age for marrying in some states is 14. At least it was as late as the mid 1970's. . Does that make a lot of sense?
Ahhh...in the one or two states in the US - it is legal to marry more than one person...(.can I find that image with the info again....not right now, i will though).
Gay Marriage is NOT going to open marriage up to anything else...see this hub for the best explanation I have seen in a while:
Think people! Think!. We are all human. Yet treating one group of people as those they are lesser does not make you the better person - it makes you despicable.
So far, I notice three themes in these forum.
The first is that opening the door to redefinition of marriage will never let it close. Without clear criteria, so the argument goes, marriage can mean almost anything.
The second argument is about procreation. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, and marriage is about reproduction, so homosexuals should not be allowed to get married.
The third argument is based on "uncertainty" about what kinds of parents homosexuals are/would be. It asks, "Where is the evidence that homosexual parents would be fit and raise good people?" To me, this is more of an argument against gay adoption in general, and allowing gay males to use surrogates, or gay females to use artificial insemination in particular.
I'm not passing judgment on any of these. I'm just trying to summarize what I've read thus far.
I think it is the right of the child to be socialised by a Mother and,if possible,a Father. Couldn't care less who marries who. I don't really believe in Marriage,even though I did it, and we are still together and probably would be without the certificate. THE RIGHT OF THE CHILD .
GLBT people often get children in relationships the old fashioned way. Many GLBT people have children because they try straight marriage.Others simply have their own biological children. There is no evidence that they are better or worse parents then anyone else. This issue about parenting has nothing to do with gay marriage, it really is sort of mute in a discussion of hetro marriage. So many people have kids outside of matrimony, it is a completely different discussion.
I don't know about the "right" to have both sexes as parents, but I do think it is an advantage for the child.
However, there are a great many children growing up with only one parent - I cannot see that two of the same sex can be anything but better than one of either sex. We freely allow divorce, in spite of recognized harm to the children, and for the life of me can't see any logic in denying gay marriage because both parents will be the same sex.
I never said that Gay marriage should be denied. I said that I didn't agree with Gay couples adopting---------Different thing.....
It is the adoption part I refer to. Is not two parents of the same sex preferable to no parent at all? Or, under certain circumstances, better than one parent?
We could go round forever. In France the family allowance is to be increased in order for Women to be encouraged to have more children. In UK there are more people wanting to adopt than there are children available,also laws that go against adoption such as smoking,a weight problem and other reasons.
So should these children go to a couple where one is overweight or to Two Fellas ?
Everywhere is not the UK. Each year 30,000 children age out of the foster care system without getting adopted. I was one of them and I would have took an overweight couple, smoking couple, gay couple, or any other couple that would have loved me. No one should get to say that a child should go without loving parents. Oh yeah by the way you should do your research because a quick google search shows the UK foster care system has over 400,000 children in it and they are having issues finding families to adopt/foster.
Yes, they should be required to obtain a Civil Union certificate in order to adopt.
Try again Darlin'.
I was talking ADOPT not short term foster. The children in U.K available for ADOPTION is around 4,000. (Women don't give up babies ,they are taken off them . Health,Prison Housing-no money to fight their case ,many more such as children placed on planes from war-torn countries by desperate parents........
"I don't think men should be allowed to adopt or foster children" Sorry I assumed you hadn't changed your stance in 30 hours. No matter the stats, not everywhere is where you are. There is a need worldwide for adoptive AND foster parents.
People seem to forget when speaking of "children" being brought up in SS marriages/relationships, that people who are gay do not ONLY Have same gender friends, family, or loved ones.
I am one of 7 girls (no boys) - I am the ONLY gay child. My sisters are all in relationships or married to MEN. I am in a CU with my wife (and married this year as it's legal but can't happen till after August). I have my mother, father, step-father, brothers-in-law, my wife's brothers (also "brothers-in-law"), and until a few years ago, my father in law (he has passed). We see all of these people a lot of the time, and I am lucky enough to have a supportive and loving family - who will love our children for who they are, whereever they may come from (IUI or adoption).
I work with male counterparts, I have male friends. My female friends have male husbands (though, yes, some are gay...so they have wifes).
I do not exist in a bubble of Women. (I can't think of ANYTHING worse!). I exist in the world just as you all do. As all your children do. Your children will have male and female teachers (who...frankly, for much of their life will spend more hours in a day with your children that you may manage!....that is the nature of schooling!).
It is not like they are brought up in a bubble.
Why do people think that they will lack a "other gender" influence? THEY WON'T
In fact, they will likely develop just as normally as your own children. (See my hub on Teenagers of Same-Sex Parents for a condensed version of the latest reasearch).
Okay ,point taken. My worry is the trendy,rich blokes, who adopt,it seems to me it is similar to going out to buy a pet. Can't stand it,The Elton Johns!
Most of my friends who are from every kind of mix seem to agree with me------re.Gender influence-MOTHER INFLUENCE actually.Don't think I am coming at this from a religious perspective as I am an atheist------
I'm sure Elton and David also do not live in a bubble of men only. With men, and surrogacy, there is usually a mother figure, who may or may not be in the childs life (she is entitled to her privacy also).
I do understand what you mean, though I feel the same about people who have children because it's the thing everyone is doing - they don't really want one, but it's a way to be: cool, paid (welfare etc), etc etc etc. I agree that children are not pets.
Gay men often have a lot of female friends, they have sisters, mothers, aunties. They are not in a bubble.
Believe me - with what it takes to get pregnant as a gay woman - we've thought long and hard about what we want and need for our children's welfare. With men, its even HARDER to become parents - adoption and surrogacy etc.....they've thought LONG and HARD about what they are doing....it's not something we ACCIDENTLY fall into.....unlike quite a number of straight couples. (grins)
When one begins to redefine traditional marriage, thought must be given to whether we are talking of marriage in the eyes of God or simply a civil union in the eyes of the law. This is the great abyss built into the subject as those who follow the teachings of the Bible cannot be expected to ignore the references to marriage and homosexual behavior thus they can never support that position in their church or their life. If civil union becomes the basis for the recognized marriage then how do we define that...."a union between two consenting adults regardless of gender"? How long will that law stand? How about the guy who falls in love with his dog and wants to marry it but is bound by law not to do so. And what about Farmer Jones falling in love with one of his sheep? Oh, one can laugh as the suggest but that is the point. Where do you draw the boundaries of the law if someone or some group can simply protest that it restricts their own rights to the pursuit of happiness? ~WB
why not redefine Civil Unions?
Forget the religious aspect of marriage altogether... let *All Couples* obtain a Civil Union Certificate!
There is Equality for you!
I've got on of these - yet it is STILL not equal to marriage, even here in New Zealand.
Why should we have to settle for second best?? Here straight people can have CU's or marriage - it's still not equal, they have every right to change to a marriage if they don't like the restrictions placed on them with an CU (eg adoption laws etc).
So, again, why should we have to settle for second best? We are not second class citizens.
The Bible is about 2000 years old and marriage is much older than that, so the reference is inadequate at best. Let not forget that only about 1/3 of the world population (if not less) believes in the Bible, so your argument is faulty to begin with
Marriage is not a religious issue, certainly not a christian issue, marriage existed long before the birth of Christ or even the freeing of the Jews from Egypt so claiming some sort of christian right to define what marriage is makes no sense whatsoever, thus the religious argument about marriage carries no weight at all.
Time to bring this thread back from its 4-day sleep, because I just remembered this:
Have a nice day~
I don't have an "argument" per se', but really, why do people have to continually re-define words.
I cannot say the little girl danced in a gay way anymore, because gay has been re-defined. I cannot say that the person acted queerly because queer has been re-defined.
Now the word marriage is going to be re-defined as well.
Why can't they make up a word? Lesbians managed to figure this out. What is the big deal anyway? If "civil union" gives a gay couple the same rights as a married heterosexual couple then why would that not be enough?
They could be original and make up their own term rather than re-defining yet another word that has had a single meaning for so long already.
All through history marriage was a social contract meant to strengthen economic or political power.
It was never about love - this concept entered the equation only recently and, in most cases, proved to be less than adequate (see the high rate of divorce before accusing me of being cynical).
Best and most successful marriages are still social contracts based primarily on commitment and common goals, as well as compatibility. For this reason alone, a marriage, which in effect is as a civil union, should not be denied to any couple
by Judy Specht5 years ago
Traditional marriage is bad. Listening to opponents of California prop 8 there is no other conclusion.
by David Zephaniah5 years ago
Democrats and media claim that most of the people in America support gay marriage. I believe that it is the other way around, and most of the people do not agree with that, including me.I believe that this insults the...
by Dale Hyde5 years ago
I am amazed that the passage of legalized gay marriage in Maryland is heavily contested by the "churches". What does gay marriage have to do with "faith"? And... why do they care or even want...
by Susan Reid5 years ago
She's a kick-ass politician. She's gay. She just got married. And she's likely going to be New York City's next mayor. She's Christine Quinn.I think it's great. (I'm also proud to be related to Ms. Quinn.)The wedding...
by Glen7 years ago
1) Being gay is not natural. Real people always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people...
by silverstararrow2 years ago
Hello everyone! I've been on HP only for a short while, three weeks to be exact. In that time, I've come across one prominent topic on both the forums and the questions section. The Gay Issue. Why people are gay, how...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.